Al-Qaeda Chief Calls For Attacks On US

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The Telegraph is reporting that Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaeda and many of the Syrian rebel forces, has called on followers to commit attacks inside the US to “bleed America economically”, in a speech marking the anniversary of the 9/11 strikes.

The reason why this is important is because of the recent information that has come to light which shows the US state has all sorts of disaster preparedness plans that have a completion date of October 1st of this year. This announcement by Zawahiri seems to be part of some staged event the government is planning.

Al-Zawahiri, a native Egyptian, was implicated in the plot to assassinate the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat back in 1981, and later became Osama Bin Laden’s personal surgeon. I’m convinced this guy has been a CIA stooge since the late 70s. He was affiliated with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad back in the 80s, and eventually became the leader of the organization itself. The organization has since merged with al-Qaeda.

The EIJ was responsible for the assassination of Sadat. At the time of the Sadat assassination, the EIJ was lead by Abbud al-Zumar, a former Egyptian military intelligence officer. Anyone notice its always the intel guys who seem to be behind these assassinations?

Both al-Zawahiri and al-Zumar were captured and held in an Egyptian prison for the assassination, and then later released. How often to do governments release known assassins? That would be like the US releasing Lee Harvey Oswald. These guys were let go because they are connected to the American intelligence community.

The EIJ went on to participate in Soviet-Afghan conflict, which means they must have had close ties to the American CIA, which funded, trained and armed the mujaheddin. Wiki notes that the Egyptians “formed a barrier” around bin Laden and “whenever he [Essam Deraz, bin Laden's first biographer] tried to speak confidentially to bin Laden, the Egyptians would surround the Saudi and drag him into another room.” So bin Laden, who was the leader of the Afghan mujaheddin, had his personal security managed by these Egyptians.

Today, the CIA is openly arming al-Qaeda once again, this time to overthrow the Assad regime. In fact, when you put all the pieces together, it almost looks like al-Zawahiri has been running the “terrorist” show for all the groups for the past 40 years. Al-Zawahiri was the leader of the EIJ, and is now the leader of al-Qaeda, and given the way the Egyptians treated bin Laden, it’s likely al-Zawahiri was running al-Qaeda during the Soviet-Afghan conflict too. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that bin Laden was just a figurehead. Like a movie producer is to a movie director, with bin Laden being the producer while al-Zawahiri actually ran the show.

Do you think the CIA would openly be arming al-Qaeda if the leader of al-Qaeda wasn’t on board with the CIA’s plans? Hell no. This guy al-Zawahiri has been an undercover CIA plant forever, so when he comes out saying that an attack is going to take place, you can bet a false flag is just around the corner.

Without “terrorists,” there is no need for a massive intelligence organization or military. The “terrorists” serve two functions. One is to keep the public in perpetual fear, so the NSA/CIA/FBI/DoD/Military Industrial Complex don’t lose all of their funding due to peace. And another is to overthrow regimes that pose a threat to the petrodollar.

Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA that was born out of the Soviet-Afghan conflict. They are a tool used by American intelligence agencies to get foreign states to do their bidding. They are also useful for blaming false-flags on. The CIA can’t go around blowing up World Trade Centers if there is no one to blame the attack on. The WTC attack was used to get us into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Similarly, you can bet a new false flag will be used to get us into Syria and Iran. Iran is the biggest threat because they are selling oil outside of the dollar system. This undermines the US ability to continue with its money printing.

I am Michael Suede (ATS Name AnarchoCapitalist), the author of this article, and the owner/operator of LibertarianNews.org

How does the saying go?

Once an agent, always an agent?

Never can leave the family... or something like that.

I learned of al-Zawahiri after watching "Power of Nightmare" and I felt back then that once you joined the CIA payroll... you never leave.

So now we have him reminding us all, like he does every year, that we must be scared which makes all the excuses for more funding... aka a drain to the taxpayer with the added sidebar of making our politicians saviors in a sense.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


I'm confused, Ayman al-Zawahiri wants to bite the hand that is feeding him?
Or is Ayman al-Zawahiri just mad because (at this moment) he can't buy the us military to help him in Syria?

GunzCoty
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

I'm confused, Ayman al-Zawahiri wants to bite the hand that is feeding him?

It's confusing if you don't understand that the US government is fundamentally predicated on the perpetuation of fear and terror.

Without "terrorists," there is no need for a massive intelligence organization or military.

The "terrorists" serve two functions. One is to keep the public in perpetual fear, so the NSA/CIA/FBI/DoD/Military Industrial Complex don't lose all of their funding due to peace. And another is to overthrow regimes that pose a threat to the petrodollar.

Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA that was born out of the Soviet-Afghan conflict. They are a tool used by American intelligence agencies to get foreign states to do their bidding. They are also useful for blaming false-flags on. The CIA can't go around blowing up World Trade Centers if there is no one to blame the attack on. The WTC attack was used to get us into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Similarly, you can bet a new false flag will be used to get us into Syria and Iran. Iran is the biggest threat because they are selling oil outside of the dollar system. This undermines the US ability to continue with its money printing.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


Speaking of preparedness in case there are attacks...here is an interesting article...regarding (power grid drills) to be held this November 13th & 14th, 2013.

Link: www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
It is truly frightening that people still see Al Qaeda as a threat to US security. These guys hired thugs for the CIA. If anyone does not realize that the the War on Terror is a Scam, the war on drugs is a scam, global warming is a scam, private central reserve banking, fiat money and fractional reserve banking are ponzi schemes, gov't healthcare is a scam, big pharma, GMO foods, revolving doors between industry and gov't, humanitarian kinetic actions, nobel peace prizes, an election process with no voter ID required and outsourced vote counting and Diebold programmable voting machines are a scam, and an unbiased mainstream media are all scams. If the almost war in Syria and potential nuclear exchange did not convince you that America is a Corportocracy controlled by zionist banking interests, and not a democracy, then you are a candidate for a frontal lobotomy. This applies to most Americans.
The apathy and lack of education of the average voter is beyond belief. Let's not prolong the anticipation and pain and simply bend over and welcome the NWO. Don't worry they won't take away your smart TV.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

At the very least, we can all agree that declaring war on a tactic is absurd. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is technically terrorism.

I am warming to the false flag theory in general, there is just too much historical evidence that coincides with the current official narrative to deny it.

That, however, does not mean that militant Islam does not want us all (infidels) converted or dead. I don't know how to reconcile these apparently inconsistent (I only say that because most of us incorrectly associate the two) viewpoints. I have, so far, simply held them as separate issues which I think is sensible.

If war is declared upon us, we should go to war, total war and eliminate the threat, not sacrifice our free society to prevent any and every pinprick attack that our enemies will commit or claim that we are bringing democracy or some other such nonsense to obfuscate the nature of our aggression.

Own it or give it away. We certainly shouldn't be conspiring with our enemies against our own liberty.

How convenient. The US decide against attacking Syria and that old favourite Al Qaeda pop their head up and give the US more cause to invade. Do they really expect the people to believe this crap?

I have quite a unique knowledge of terrorists and terrorism and i can tell you with 100% certainty that these are not genuine terrorist agenda's.

Your government is lying to you.

AGAIN!

Al Qaeda=Bogey Man=Run away......Pffffft

A wise man once said... Hush little baby don't say a word. And never mind that noise you heard. It's just the beasts under your bed. In your closet in your head...

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


A very interesting report, its been a while since we have heard form al-Zawahiri so at least we know he's probably still waiting for his date with a hellfire missile.

Also this is not the first time that he has spoke on Syria



Actually there are quite a few video's like this

So good catch OP

Just about your god awful commentary

Claiming that Al-Zawahiri is a CIA agent is ridiculous, as are all claims that the leadership of Al-Qa'ida were CIA, it implies that you dont understand the vast and complex ideology behind the groups thinking. What the CIA invented the teachings of the likes of Sayyid Qutb?

Aditionally to describe Al-Zawahiri as the leader of of Al-Qa'ida in Syria (Al-Nusra) is also wrong, anyone who has any understanding of Al-Qa'ida will tell you that Al-Zawahiri has no operational contorl over any of the franchise groups. Sure Al-Nusra have singed up to the Al-Qa'id flag, but they are not the same thing. To say otherwise is wrong.

Describing Bin Laden as the leader of the "Afghan Mujahedin" is actually laughable, he was no such thing, if anything for most of the Soviet Afghan conflict he was something of a embarrassment and many of the Afghan warriors despised the Arab involvement. Its interesting to note as well that under operation Claymore the CIA only sent funds to the Afghan Mujahdedin and not to the Arabs as that fell under a separate operation conducted by the Saudi state.

Regardless nice catch, but please go take a history lesson.

I think that we had an agreement with AQ and the rest of the rebels about getting involved in Syria and after the British vote down and the chemical weapon fiasco and the overwelming desire of Americans to stay out of this fight we are about to abandon our agreement. AQ is mad and now making threats aganst the U.S.. Obamas Bay Of Pigs if you will.

nfflhome
I think that we had an agreement with AQ and the rest of the rebels about getting involved in Syria and after the British vote down and the chemical weapon fiasco and the overwelming desire of Americans to stay out of this fight we are about to abandon our agreement. AQ is mad and now making threats aganst the U.S.. Obamas Bay Of Pigs if you will.

Abandon it? We are escalating it.

We are now openly arming and training them.

The CIA is going to blow up an American city, blame it on Assad or the al-Qaeda rebels fighting in Syria, and then invade Syria.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

Describing Bin Laden as the leader of the "Afghan Mujahedin" is actually laughable, he was no such thing...

Regardless nice catch, but please go take a history lesson.

So go edit Wiki and provide your sources Mr. Know-It-All

en.wikipedia.org...

After leaving college in 1979, bin Laden went to Pakistan, joined Abdullah Azzam and used money and machinery from his own construction company to help the mujahideen resistance in the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[72] He later told a journalist: "I felt outraged that an injustice had been committed against the people of Afghanistan."[73] Under Operation Cyclone from 1979 to 1989, the United States provided financial aid and weapons to the mujahideen through Pakistan's ISI. Bin Laden met and built relations with Hamid Gul, who was a three-star general in the Pakistani army and head of the ISI agency. Although the United States provided the money and weapons, the training of militant groups was entirely done by the Pakistani Armed Forces and the ISI.

By 1984, bin Laden and Azzam established Maktab al-Khidamat, which funneled money, arms and fighters from around the Arab world into Afghanistan. Through al-Khadamat, bin Laden's inherited family fortune[74] paid for air tickets and accommodation, paid for paperwork with Pakistani authorities and provided other such services for the jihadi fighters. Bin Laden established camps inside Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan and trained volunteers from across the Muslim world to fight against the Soviet puppet regime, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. It was during this time that he became idolised by many Arabs.[6]

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

The CIA is going to blow up an American city, blame it on Assad or the al-Qaeda rebels fighting in Syria, and then invade Syria.

Dude what are you talking about?

Are you honestly trying to say that the CIA is going to blow up a US City then blame it on Assad as a pretext to war?

Now putting aside your wired claims about Al-Qa'ida, "they" would have no need to do that, they have all the motivation the really need to attack Syria.

EDIT

.... really Wiki.... thats what your using to learn about something as complex as Al-Qa'ida?

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

The CIA is going to blow up an American city, blame it on Assad or the al-Qaeda rebels fighting in Syria, and then invade Syria.

Are you honestly trying to say that the CIA is going to blow up a US City then blame it on Assad as a pretext to war?

Yep.

They did it for Afghanistan and Iraq.

They will do it again for Syria and Iran.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

They did it for Afghanistan and Iraq.

What false flag did they use for Iraq?

Iraq, let me remind you, was not about 9/11 it was about WMD's and Saddam allegedly having links to terrorists and just in general not being a very nice guy.

But they did not use any kind of attack on American soil to justify attacking Iraq.

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


Suppling small arms is not the same as Jets taking out strategic sites. We were suposed to do the heavy lifting. Come on man.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

They did it for Afghanistan and Iraq.

What false flag did they use for Iraq?

Iraq, let me remind you, was not about 9/11 it was about WMD's and Saddam allegedly having links to terrorists and just in general not being a very nice guy.

But they did not use any kind of attack on American soil to justify attacking Iraq.

You must be too young to remember the propaganda that led up the Iraq war. People over the age of 35 know that the WTC attack was a big pretext for the invasion. A simple Google search will turn up tons of old propaganda on the subject.

Here's a 2003 WND article that talks about how a secret intelligence report undermined the justification for the invasion of Iraq.

www.wnd.com...

WASHINGTON – U.S. intelligence services unanimously agreed last fall that “no specific intelligence information” tied Iraq to U.S. terrorist attacks, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Their findings were presented to the president Oct. 2 in a still-secret report on Iraq. The summary, or “key judgments” section, of the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate was declassified Friday. WorldNetDaily obtained a copy from the National Security Council. (The report is different from the unclassified 25-page white paper the CIA made public on its website last October.)

Page 4 of the report states: “… [W]e have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory.”

The statement would appear to undercut a popular theory among Iraq hawks that Baghdad conspired with al-Qaida operatives to try to blow up New York’s Twin Towers in 1993, and possibly sponsored the repeat attack on them in 2001.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Iraq hard-liners – including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and former CIA Director James Woolsey – have openly embraced the theory, first published in the book “The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks.”

In fact, Woolsey wrote the foreword to the book, authored by Laurie Mylroie, an adjunct fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, or AEI. Woolsey, who has argued for starting “World War IV” in the Middle East, called the book “brilliant and brave.”

Wolfowitz, a leading “neoconservative,” said it “argues powerfully that the shadowy mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing … was in fact an agent of Iraqi intelligence.”

Mylroie, pronounced “MIL-roy,” insists there is a wealth of evidence tying Iraq to the first World Trade Center attack, much of it gathered by the New York office of the FBI during the investigation of bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef.

Problem is, she argues, “the CIA didn’t want to look at it.”

reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist


Oh i remember it, i was out on the streets demonstrating against it.

9/11 Was not a justification for Iraq however the administration at the time tried to imply a connection to Al-Qa'ida and iraq. It was based on some very bad intelligence but it was not claiming that Saddam himself had a hand in the attacks.

So to get back on topic.

Can you please explain why the CIA would "blow up" an American City to gain justification for attacking Syria, everybody knows that Assad does not have this capability so such a false flag would raise huge questions. In addition to this America already had enough justification (as they see it anyway) to attack Syria whenever the want.

so why would they bother attacking an American city.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist

 

Oh i remember it, i was out on the streets demonstrating against it.

9/11 Was not a justification for Iraq however the administration at the time tried to imply a connection to Al-Qa'ida and iraq.

I just showed you that it was.

It's not worth arguing with you if you are going to reject evidence that's right in front of your face.

Here's a huge wiki article on it:

en.wikipedia.org...